If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ.You must register to post. After registering, your first post will be reviewed before it appears. We've found this is necessary to limit spam. Registration is free and quick. To view forum posts, select the topic that you want to visit from the list on the forum home page. (Click the "forum" tab on any page to go to the home page.) Under each topic, you can add a comment to an existing discussion, or click "Post New Thread" to start a new discussion.

I always ensure that I can stop and I stop and yield to cars that get to their stop sign first; often they wave me through, sometimes they treat me like a vehicle and go ahead;

I typically wave those cars through. I don't want anyone to do me a favor. I want everybody to do what they have the legal right to do. The car beats me to the 4-way stop on Van Buren...I wave them through. In doing this I'm also thinking about the Predictable component of PAL. If everybody acts predictably we should all be safe.

Every now and then there is someone who completely stops and puts a foot down at the stop sign even when there's no traffic. In a car that is normal, but on bike it is weird.

In a car, that is not normal. Unless there is cross traffic or pedestrians, cars never come to complete stops. Watch the front wheels and you'll see. I think 3-6mph is about the normal speed at which cars go through stop signs.

In a car, that is not normal. Unless there is cross traffic or pedestrians, cars never come to complete stops. Watch the front wheels and you'll see. I think 3-6mph is about the normal speed at which cars go through stop signs.

Which has to be the internal combustion equivalent of a clipped-in slow-roll.

But yeah, while it feels like I'm more cautious than most of my fellow commuters, and try to be a PAL/WABA rep, I am a consummate scufflaw when it comes to treating stop signs as yields. I always slow down and look, but don't put the foot down if the coast is clear--it feels safer to not loose all momentum when there's a big ol' car breathing down your neck.

I do like how this notion is expanding to other states, and is part of an inclusive package! I am not sure how they'll enforce the honking thing though...

Which has to be the internal combustion equivalent of a clipped-in slow-roll.

But yeah, while it feels like I'm more cautious than most of my fellow commuters, and try to be a PAL/WABA rep, I am a consummate scofflaw when it comes to treating stop signs as yields.

Treating stop signs as yields is what drivers do, too. Which is why I get annoyed when police require people on bikes to put a foot down, but allow drivers to roll through at 5mph. If it's standard practice to allow cars to roll through at 5, then it should be for bike riders. If anything, the standard should be more stringent for drivers, since they are more dangerous.
I asked a police officer once if he had ever ticketed a driver for slow rolling a stop sign (as vs. blowing through one), and he said no.

Treating stop signs as yields is what drivers do, too. Which is why I get annoyed when police require people on bikes to put a foot down, but allow drivers to roll through at 5mph. If it's standard practice to allow cars to roll through at 5, then it should be for bike riders. If anything, the standard should be more stringent for drivers, since they are more dangerous.
I asked a police officer once if he had ever ticketed a driver for slow rolling a stop sign (as vs. blowing through one), and he said no.

This is not my experience. --I have been ticketed for slow rolling a stop sign. While I agree that cars don't always stop completely, slowing down to a virtual stop is quite different behavior than most cyclists, including myself, which is to (hopefully) slow down and look and treat it as a yield. Cars are expected to stop even if there is perfect visibility and no other vehicles are present. I never put a foot down, but the law doesn't explicitly require you to do that if you stop, does it?

This is not my experience. --I have been ticketed for slow rolling a stop sign. While I agree that cars don't always stop completely, slowing down to a virtual stop is quite different behavior than most cyclists, including myself, which is to (hopefully) slow down and look and treat it as a yield. Cars are expected to stop even if there is perfect visibility and no other vehicles are present. I never put a foot down, but the law doesn't explicitly require you to do that if you stop, does it?

1. I think most vehicles (bikes but especially cars) go faster than 5 MPH when proceeding through a yield sign, so I agree. So I think the Delaware stop legalizes going faster than a typical slow roll (but maybe I need to read the actual text?)

2. Alexandria police have in the past told BPAC that in their enforcement campaigns such as on Union they will not ticket someone riding a bike at walking speed, though I do not think they gave us a precise speed.

3. I still believe that it is reasonable to have a different standard for how bikes behave at stop signs than cars - because of lower risk to people other than the stop as yielder, due to better visibility from a bike, and due to the potential for a cyclist to get away from a dangerous or uncomfortable situation. I am eager for more data to see how the new law effects safety.

Uggh. I hate Idaho Stop. It's a gaudy bauble that distracts the cycling community from real, meaningful issues. It's bad policy and worse politics. There is no logical reason for treating bikes differently at stop signs. Idaho Stop and its Delaware Stop variant are based on a calculus that bikes are simply such a small modal share that nothing they do will significantly affect overall safety or flow.

* Lower risk is not no-risk (especially with regard to the vehicle operator), and safety is not the sole criterion. Flow is another goal of traffic control devices.

* It's an unproven theory that cyclists have better visibility. Certainly not when there's precipitation, and often in very high or low temperatures cars have the advantage. I would venture to say that in intersection collisions (which usually involve moving objects), it's rare to say that obstructed vision is commonly a cause of accidents. Not that I need to prove anything. It's not my theory.

* It's also an unproven theory that Idaho Stop is more suited to cyclists "due to the potential for a cyclist to get away from a dangerous or uncomfortable situation". I'm not sure I even know what that means.

Uggh. I hate Idaho Stop. It's a gaudy bauble that distracts the cycling community from real, meaningful issues.

I was at a meeting of Alexandria BPAC last night. We discussed many issues of concern to cyclists and pedestrians. Idaho stop was not mentioned once. I see no such distraction.

It's bad policy and worse politics.

I see no evidence that bike advocacy has been set back in Idaho or Delaware - indeed the new law in Delaware ALSO does the following:

"Bicycle traffic signals defined and enabled as an engineering tool for DelDOT (specifically enables the Delaware Avenue Separated Bikeway in Newark). Most serious bicycle crashes occur at intersections in Delaware. There is no more important safety countermeasure that Delaware could adopt to reduce serious bicycle crashes than the widespread adoption of bicycle traffic signals.

Requires motorists to change lanes (including when there is a double yellow line) when passing bicycles when travel lanes are too narrow for side-by-side sharing (making “Three Foot” passing a requirement only in the special case of wide lanes).

“As close as practicable to the right-hand edge of the roadway” (the dreaded “AFRAP”) also disappears from state code (replaced by “far enough to the right as judged safe by the operator to facilitate the movement of such overtaking vehicles unless the bicycle operator determines that other conditions make it unsafe to do so“) and, again, only as a special case for wide lanes.

Motorists forbidden to honk horns at cyclists when passing except for imminent danger.

General clarification of “where to ride” laws, including specifically permitting two-abreast riding within the lane in a narrow lane. . "

Now the current status of having so many cyclists be scofflaws may be bad politics, but that would suggest a benefit of laws that legalize what what most already do.

There is no logical reason for treating bikes differently at stop signs. Idaho Stop and its Delaware Stop variant are based on a calculus that bikes are simply such a small modal share that nothing they do will significantly affect overall safety or flow.

I see no evidence that that is what they are based on. Its certainly not an argument I have seen. Of course we will not know if legalizing Idaho (or Delaware) impedes or improves flow (or neither) until its legal in a place iwth higher bike mode share.

Flow is another goal of traffic control devices.

This AM I was at the intersection of 30th and Buchanan in Arlington. A fourway stop. Proceeding EB on 30th. There was zero traffic on Buchanan. The only traffic other than my bike was a car, also proceeding EB, behind me. Please explain how my Delawaring the stop sign impeded traffic flow.

* It's an unproven theory that cyclists have better visibility. Certainly not when there's precipitation, and often in very high or low temperatures cars have the advantage. I would venture to say that in intersection collisions (which usually involve moving objects), it's rare to say that obstructed vision is commonly a cause of accidents. Not that I need to prove anything. It's not my theory.

* It's also an unproven theory that Idaho Stop is more suited to cyclists "due to the potential for a cyclist to get away from a dangerous or uncomfortable situation". I'm not sure I even know what that means.

If you had ridden with me this AM, I could have pointed out some examples.

In any case, its hard to prove the effects without data, and hard to get data on something that hasn't been tried (IE legalizing the Delaware stop)